Proposal requirements
I would suggest that for smaller requirements, say less than 5 FTEs, the government develop and use simplified RFQ templates that don't require a "full blown proposal" for 1-5 FTEs. The effort to develop these responses is the same as for 25 FTEs or more, unless key personnel and resumes of available persons are required. This could be simplified to allow more responses from viable, responsible, and experienced contractors. The only exception would be mission critical support, which requires the contractor to possess the requisite experience, past performance, etc. - it's the people who perform the work when a small task is being solicited.
Cindy Brockwell
shared this idea
3 comments
-
Cindy Brockwell
commented
Even with simplified and small bus preferences the proposal requirements with short turn arounds are extensive - up to 6 volumes due within 2 weeks - we won but the effort was extraordinary to say the least. When just short proposals and resumes and pricing are required it is always a low ball price shoot out with mixed results. Very high risk to the govt - this occurs across all FAR clauses from 8, 13, 15 - across the board. So am wondering if there isn't a mid tier approach the govt can utilize just as industry does in addressing those business areas.
-
Jaime Gracia commented
Seems like these type of requirements could be executed using simplified acquisition procedures under FAR 13, up to $6.5M.
-
James
commented
It would seem to me that using a simplified RFQ template or "less than full blown proposal" would do the opposite - allow many more nonviable, irresponsible, and inexperienced contractors to bid.
However, I do agree with you. The smaller the task, the more the individuals tend to affect the success of a project than the company they represent.
In these cases, make the evaluation more resource based than company based and set a maximum page limit. If you have the right people for the job, it'll be obvious in your response - well before the page limit.
